60fps Rendering with Camtasia

  • 6
  • Idea
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • Under Consideration
Merged

This conversation has been merged. Please reference the main conversation: Import, edit, & produce 60fps video

Hey guys, i use camtasia since version 6, and this is my first time i come to the forums! I do a lot of gaming content on youtube and since camtasia is my favorite and only editor i would love that you guys offer us the posibility to render our videos on 60fps!

I hope you will consider this.

Thank you!
Photo of GamesRealm

GamesRealm

  • 3 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
  • A bit sad, becouse i have to find another editing software! :(

Posted 5 years ago

  • 6
Photo of Rick Stone

Rick Stone

  • 5649 Posts
  • 2688 Reply Likes
Hi there

I watch the forums quite a lot and I see many requests for this "60 fps" output. And I've looked at several videos that attempt to demonstrate the "huge difference" between a 30 fps and a 60 fps video.

Aside from possibly being able to achieve a smoother playback if doing slow motion sequences, I'm stumped as to why all the clamor for 60 fps. As I said earlier, even when looking at these "comparison videos" showing the supposed difference, I never see any difference. So obviously I must be overlooking something vitally important. I dunno, maybe I just need a faster and more "up to date" computer? I use a Samsung laptop with 8 gigs of RAM and an i7 processor. Other things seem to work fine.

So please describe what it is that would dramatically change if Camtasia offered this ability.

Cheers... Rick :)
Photo of Krystian Świtała

Krystian Świtała

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I see huge differences and most youtubers to with 60 fps you see game videos like on your pc instead on video on youtube. It's something what camtasia have to have or otherwise youtubers soon will move to different software's who have this options already .
Photo of Odie

Odie

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
I absolutely agree! I'm actually not going to even bother with my Camstasia anymore, because no matter what I've tried... I get a chop in my video now about every few seconds at most. I would luv to be able to put segments of my favorite game "War Thunder" together, as I did some time ago with my Reisen video that managed to come out okay, however... this is the sort of video I get now using what I believe to be the same settings months later, though was updated to the newest version just before I got to making this latest one and is the same game... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WppkupsqJok

The video is shot in 1980x1080. You can see my game frame rate in the top left corner doesn't dip below around 60 fps (though this is a recorded replay). Watch what happens when the engagement gets really craZy. There's huge chunks of video that are just missing right off the bat, though actual time wise is only but a second or so. :O/ Of course the game, nor the replay shows it like this is real time, or I wouldn't still be playing.
(Edited)
Photo of Krystian Świtała

Krystian Świtała

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yep I heard that brain can only see 24 fps but what if you see 60 fps then probably brain taking best 24 from 60 who you just seen so that's is maybe why I see huge difference between does videos . 
Photo of Mark Owens

Mark Owens

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am sorry. I think one would have to be NEARLY blind to not to notice twice as many frames with any given video clip. Be it video games, or sports or whatever. My wife and I run a community based radio/online tv station in our small town and and we do all of our recording on a Canon G30 which supports 1080p@60p and when recording sports, its like night and day. Now that YouTube supports 60fps its all I edit in, and more and more gaming channels on YouTube and game streamers to Twitch are taking advantage of it. Before YouTube made the change, I used Camtasia Studios. I LOVED it. It was so intuitive and my work flow was smooth, but I HAD to move to Adobe when YouTube changed the game. I wish I could could go back but I cant. I dont like paying the Adobe Cloud service every month. I honestly think that people who claim there is no difference or that," eye cant tell the difference between 30 or 60" are like I said, either blind, or have ABSOLUTELY no idea what they are talking about, or plants for UbiSoft....lol 
Photo of Rick Stone

Rick Stone

  • 5649 Posts
  • 2688 Reply Likes
Hi Mark

I must be typing this from a braille keyboard. So apologies if there are tpyos. ;)

To be honest, I've looked at all the videos linked in this thread and I really don't see any difference. And I really WANT to! Just so I can understand what all the hoopla is about.  ;)

Now I'm not claiming there isn't a difference. Only that if one exists, I'm personally not able to observe it. But perhaps it's my hardware or even my tired old eyes. Or maybe a bit of both! ;)

Really, I'm thinking the only way I'd be able to notice a difference would be if I were in some setting such as a computer store or a TV store or section of a store where I could see two setups side by side. I do notice that in the local MicroCenter store I visit from time to time, there was a very large monitor or TV that had a video running where it was showing something like Blu-Ray side by side with regular DVD and the difference was easy to see there. But again, that's just different hardware.

If you can tell the difference, I heartily applaud you! But I'm thinking if you see others with a similar situation to me, we are scratching our heads and wondering why all the fuss.

Cheers... Rick :)
Photo of Fred Grover

Fred Grover, Champion

  • 2445 Posts
  • 384 Reply Likes
I would have to agree with what you say Rick. I could not see the difference on my computer screen or when I had the HDTV hooked up and played it on that for a second monitor at 1920x1080p. I must be blind myself. I do know that if someone is going to produce for movies or instructional videos that are on a DVD then I could understand wanting a higher frame rate. But for no more than what I do which is mostly online videos no game recording then I do not need 60 fps. If I were looking to do those kind of things like gaming or making actual movies (Hollywood Style) I would not use Camtasia Studio. For games when I recorded them I always used FRAPS but I do not game much anymore. Just my 2 cents worth here.
Photo of oscarmiller1998

oscarmiller1998

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
For the type of videos I make it's really appearant when you use 30fps.
60fps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HZq-gvTPfo
30fps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H0r0Y78i6I 
As you can see 30fps stutters like hell and 60fps doesn't. The 30fps video is made by me using Camtasia. The difference is there and I hate when I sometimes have to revert to Adobe Premiere's difficult editing just to get another framerate.

Plus, what's the problem with just adding it. Even you admit, many people want it, shouldn't customer's satisfaction matter?
Photo of Jason

Jason

  • 5 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
For some reason this conversation feels like multiple people asking for Camtasia to support colour and a several others continually interjecting to let everyone know they're colourblind and so can't see the point.

I don't know if it's a genuine limitation of your vision or if you're using a low-refresh rate monitor that obscures the difference (as I suggested below), but it really doesn't matter unless you can show that nobody can see the difference, which clearly isn't true.

I've spent $700 over the years on Camtasia and upgrades and I've invested a fair bit of effort into learning how to use it. It does exactly what I need it to do except for this one thing, but this thing is important enough that I've begun looking at alternatives (just yesterday I was asking someone what software he used for his videos because his were 60 fps), which I wouldn't have even considered otherwise. Looking at comment threads on this topic here, I'm not the only one. As a software developer, adding 60 fps support seems like a trivial update (especially since it actually has the option to generate 60 fps videos, but when you play them back frame-by-frame you see it plays each frame twice to reduce it to an effective 30 fps, defeating the purpose) and yet here we are nearly eight months since I first commented and there's still no update. It's very disappointing.
Photo of masterx1234

masterx1234

  • 3 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
confirmed peasant... 
Photo of GamesRealm

GamesRealm

  • 3 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Hi Rick,

Thank you so mutch for reply, if you watch this video i think is imposible that you don`t notice that "small" but significant difference betwin 30fps and 60fps.

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-dOuBcxMlk
Photo of Rick Stone

Rick Stone

  • 5649 Posts
  • 2688 Reply Likes
LOL, maybe I'm just old. Sigh...

I watched the video. Even did as instructed and watched using Google Chrome. But these old eyes really don't see any difference. If it's there, it's very very subtle.

Sorry... Rick :)
Photo of Jason

Jason

  • 5 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Rest assured that it's obvious to some. :-) Heck, I can see the difference between 120 Hz and 60 Hz.

I came across this thread after a Google search because I followed the instructions in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFDK7KdbIk4 and after watching the resulting video it produced it was obvious to me that it wasn't 60 fps despite what the file's properties said. It turns out that Camtasia simply showed each frame twice (confirmed by stepping through the output frame-by-frame in the Quicktime player).

I've been searching for a long time for a way to record demos of my software at 60 fps (NVIDIA's ShadowPlay does the trick) and YouTube now supports 60 fps but the critical piece in the middle does not.
Photo of Rick Stone

Rick Stone

  • 5649 Posts
  • 2688 Reply Likes
Hi Jason

Thanks for sharing. Are you able to easily articulate exactly how it appears different to you?

For example, at 30 fps, it's just a bit "blurry" or whatever and at 60 fps it's crystal clear. Or perhaps, I'm trying to do slow motion and it's jerky when I try. Something like that.

Please know that I'm asking not because I wish to antagonize folks or belabor things. I honestly and sincerely do hope to someday finally totally understand what all the fuss is about with this. And I seriously wish it were something that just leaped right out and became totally obvious.

Until it's easily articulated and demonstrated, it has more of a feeling of "we want it just because it's a possibility".

Happy Holidays... Rick :)
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 7262 Posts
  • 3967 Reply Likes
It's not Blurry. Most Video games are sharply focused at every frame. If they had motion blur built into them, I think they would probably look pretty smooth at 30fps.

I prefer first person shooter games myself.  ( War ) You see the weapon you are using, aim and shoot as if you are looking through your own eyes. Run, climb, etc. and so forth.

As you navigate through city's , forests , etc. Your head has got to be on a swivel at times. So you are already looking around in fast motion with a standard motion clip. You also need to be focused in with all your peripheral vision. A sniper in a small window near the bottom corner of your screen is hard to see.

When I'm looking at the entire screen at once. The jitter at 30fps is obvious.

 It's greatly reduced when concentrating on a small area of the screen. Most gamers will watch the entire screen is if they are playing the game themselves.  Whether they intend to or not.

Try watching that video GamesRealm eluded to again. Full screen will show the  jitter more clearly. A Large Flat screen shows it even more.

The jitter is everywhere but more obvious in your peripheral vision.

When you create an advanced animation. Like a 3-D model of a spinning object. Or 3-D text that tumbles, thing like that. Motion blur will blur the edges strategically and make the motion look more realistic. Especially when working with lower frame rates.
It's also processor intense and renders a lot slower than standard HD video. I imagine  that's why video games don't use it and are played at 60fps.
Photo of Jason

Jason

  • 5 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
As Joe explains, at 30 fps movement jitters (judders is another good word). At 60 fps it looks "real", like you're actually there. (Part of this is because the monitor is actually running at 60 Hz and so it's showing the same image twice, messing up your brain's motion prediction -- it looks like it's starting and stopping continuously rather than moving smoothly.)

Different people have different sensitivities so the best I can do is find a framerate where it becomes obvious to you, and then you can simply imagine that some of us feel the same way but at a higher threshold.

If you watch a conventional movie in a cinema, the framerate is 24 fps. (Shown at 48 Hz but that's just to reduce flicker.) Does movement look smooth to you (as if you're looking at reality through a window) or does it judder (especially e.g. if a large object like a car moves quickly across frame)?

Old movies were shot at 15 fps. Does the movement look smooth to you, or does it judder?

Live television is often shot at 60/50 Hz, while pre-recorded TV shows (especially dramas) are normally shot at half that to give them a "film-like" quality. Ever notice the difference? Ever watched the credits scrolling up the screen at the end?

Try different output framerate settings in Camtasia. Somewhere between 1 fps and 30 fps you should find the framerate where it stops juddering for you and it looks just as smooth as waving a hand in front of your face. For some of us, it never does at any of those settings.

The benefit of 60 fps recordings is that the recording looks exactly like what someone would see if they were using the software live (on a 60 Hz monitor, anyway). At 30 fps it judders, taking on a "film-like" quality. Since my software involves manipulating 3D objects, and since one of the features of my software is how optimised the rendering is, 60 fps allows me to show that off.

One final point is that it might not actually be your eyes but it could be your monitor that's making it hard to see the difference. When you move your mouse around the screen, does it look solid or does it become multiple pointers or ghost-out? If it's the latter, then it could simply be that you're not seeing the 60 fps in all its glory because your monitor doesn't have a low enough response time, blurring out the 60 fps movement. See http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Response_Time_ShootOut.htm for some examples.
Photo of ArmoredChocobo .

ArmoredChocobo .

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I also would like to see Camtasia render at 60 FPS. I use version 7 and with the advent of 60 FPS playback on Youtube, it's another feature people would like to make use of.

Also, I'm baffled why it wasn't added sooner. I mean, the Camtasia recorder can record games at 60 FPS, but the editor can't render them at 60? Where's the logic? The change only becomes more significant if your source video is 60 FPS and is being forced to play at 30.

I've been forced to employ new recorders and editors if I want my videos to come out at the same frames per second as they started with, which leaves Camtasia on my hard-drive just as a kindness. Sometimes I'd send over audio files to use the Noise reduction, but since I learned to use Audacity even THAT use is gone because Camtasia is less efficient and doesn't get rid of all the noise like Audacity can.

Camtasia's showing it's age by not even keeping up with itself. I like the recorder and the editor is VERY easy to use, but I can't use it if I want the absolute best results, due to major design oversights.
(Edited)
Photo of Steve Taylor

Steve Taylor

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
I think what it comes down to is the sampling rate...of what any given person is used to. I don't think it's a blind thing, I think it's just a matter of how much rate of change you are capable of picking up. I definitely noticed a difference. Particularly if you look at a game that is intended to run at 60 fps, and you see the frame rate drop to 30. Instead of a smooth motion, you'll see some chop, or more distance between each frame of a moving object. It really disrupts the experience for me.
Photo of david

david

  • 12 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
I would love 60fps, and 50fps! In Europe most of our TV's are 50hz refresh rate, 50fps will look best on them. My Sony camera records video at 50fps, as do most in Europe. YouTube supports both!

To the people who say they can't see 30fps problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaHQJ0T9iHg&lc=z12wz3zrpkjbwhyig04cgdhyexrozx2icq00k#t=10m45s

(forum messes up the link, plz copy and paste the whole thing to jump to 10m 45s!)

Watch the VU meter travel across the screen from left to right. Does that look smooth to you? This is a simple Camtasia animation at 30 fps i created.

Unfortunately there is no perfect frame rate as the world could not decide together on one and we have all sorts of different annoying standards.

Variable frame rate monitors are coming with freesync and gsync battling it out. I think it will take years until it's sorted, variable frame rates need to be in HDMI as they are now in Display Port:

https://techreport.com/news/26451/adaptive-sync-added-to-displayport-spec

Here's how this tech relates to games:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/variable_refresh.htm

For anyone who wants the very best judder free playback NOW rather than waiting years, the best compromise is MadVR using smooth motion settings:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146228

You need a compatible media player like Media Player Classic - Home Cinema (MPC-HC):

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=166689

MadVR up-samples the frame rate of your video to that of your TV or monitor using intelligent frame creation. Much like 'smooth motion' on LCD TV's like Panasonic, but better. You need to turn it on in the options.

If Camtasia can get all the frame rates covered then we are free to make the creative choice. Some people like 24fps as it's what film has always used and people associate it with being cinematic... for Camtasia educational videos with moving animations its just an unpleasant jerk fest :)
(Edited)
Photo of Rick Stone

Rick Stone

  • 5649 Posts
  • 2688 Reply Likes
For anyone else like me that is infinitely curious and always eager to learn more, I found the video linked below to be a fascinating watch. And it's actually related to this thread.

https://youtu.be/mjYjFEp9Yx0

Cheers all... Rick :)
Photo of david

david

  • 12 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Thanks, great video!
Photo of Kelly Mullins

Kelly Mullins, TechSmith Employee & Helper

  • 2894 Posts
  • 649 Reply Likes
Official Response
Hello,
For the most current information on this topic, please see this post:
https://feedback.techsmith.com/techsmith/topics/techsmiths-camtasia-studio-60-fps

This topic will now be closed for future comments.

Kelly
User Assistance
TechSmith
(Edited)

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.